1. GOING VIRTUAL!
The Status of
Professional Development for
K-12 Online Teachers
Kerry Rice, Ed.D.
Lisa Dawley, Ph.D.
Boise State University
November 2, 2007

2. GOING VIRTUAL!
The Status of
Professional Development for
K-12 Online Teachers
Results from Phase One of the Going Virtual! Study Series
Research
Kerry Rice, Ed.D.
Boise State University
Lisa Dawley, Ph.D.
Boise State University
Research support
Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP)
University of Memphis
Additional support
North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL)
Washington, D.C.

3. TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 5
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 8
The Growing Need for Professional Development for K-12 Online Teachers ............................... 8
Models of Teacher Professional Development ................................................................................... 9
Going Virtual! Study Series ..................................................................................................................10
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS..................................................................................................12
DETAILED SURVEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................13
School or Program Model Affiliation ..................................................................................................13
Demographics ........................................................................................................................................14
Experience and Education of Survey Respondents ......................................................................14
Grade Levels and Subject Areas Served by Survey Respondents ..............................................14
Professional Development: Who, When, and How? .........................................................................15
Teachers who Participated in Professional Development ...........................................................15
When Professional Development Occurs ......................................................................................17
How Professional Development was Delivered ...........................................................................18
Who Provided Professional Development?...................................................................................19
The Design of Professional Development......................................................................................20
Professional Development Content .....................................................................................................25
Guidelines Used in Professional Development ............................................................................25
Professional Development Content Reported by Teachers .........................................................26
Professional Development Content Reported by Trainers ..........................................................29

4. Open-Ended Comments .......................................................................................................................32
Positive Statements ...........................................................................................................................32
Issues and Challenges ......................................................................................................................33
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................34
APPENDIX A ..............................................................................................................................................36
Participant School and Organization Affiliations .............................................................................36
Location of Survey Respondents .........................................................................................................37

5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study was to explore the practices and models of professional development
being used in K-12 virtual schools and programs across the United States, and to establish base
data for future studies. We conducted a national survey of online K-12 teachers, administrators
and professional development trainers during the 2006-2007 academic year and specifically
targeted those working with fully online programs and courses.
Although research about online professional development for adults in general, and teachers in
particular, has been an emerging field of inquiry over the past five to ten years, very little is
known about empirically identified practices and methods for effectively training K-12 virtual
teachers and the variety of contexts in which they teach. We do know that most state-led
programs have developed extensive professional development (PD) for their own teachers, but
that the amount of time in PD varies greatly by program, from none to 270 hours per year. We
also know that most programs use a mix of online and face-to-face training and that topics
include pedagogical techniques, use of technology tools, policies and guidelines, and course
design. Finally, we know that due to lack of state policy, many programs have created their own
quality assurance programs to ensure quality teaching and quality of program (Watson & Ryan,
2006). Preliminary results from this study adds to this emerging knowledge base of PD for state-
led programs by looking more in-depth and across multiple contexts of K-12 online schools and
programs.
The framework for this study is grounded in an exploration of the contextual nature of
professional development for K-12 online teachers. As such, this report provides a national
snapshot and answers two main questions:
What practices and models of teacher professional development are being used in K-12
virtual schools and programs across the country
What are the contextual factors that influence the design of professional development?
We identified a wide range of practices used in K-12 online teacher professional development.
Data was reported on the who, when, and how of PD, as well as the design and content of PD.
To better understand context, we sorted much of the data using an emergent framework based on
school or program model. In sorting the data using this framework, we identified some shared
and some very distinct trends:
Amount of Training: More than 90% of teachers reported that training had been
provided or made available to them, and this percent was fairly consistent regardless of
the model or program.
Credit for Training: While 60% of teachers reported receiving some type of graduate,
CEU, or professional credit with their training, 57% reported the training didn’t meet
state requirements for certification or were unclear about meeting state requirements.
When PD Occurs: The highest teacher-reported period when PD occurred was during
the first year (61%). Forty percent (40%) of teachers reported receiving PD each year after
the first year.
Going Virtual! 5

6. PD Prior to Teaching Online: 62% of teachers and 26% of administrators report teachers
receiving no training prior to teaching online. Supplemental programs reported the
highest percentage of training prior to teaching online (38%).
Format of PD: Training sessions are delivered in a variety of formats, with online
training being the most popular at 48%, hybrid at 31%, and face-to-face at 9%. It should
be noted that 12% of teachers reported that face-to-face was the only form of PD they had
received.
Who Provides PD: The majority of training is being provided by the school or program,
regardless of the model (70% teachers, 47% administrators). Organizations are the next
highest provider, then universities. A small percentage of teachers and administrators
reported the district providing training.
School-wide models reported the highest use of school-based training (70%), with only
10% of PD being handled by the larger organization. Contrast this to consortium models
which reported 35% of training at the school-level, and 29% being provided by the
organization.
Philosophy, Goals, Policies: Overall, administrators described a “professional”
orientation to the philosophy, goals, or policies that underscore their training programs,
such as gaining the necessary skills and knowledge to do the job. Other emphases
included improving student learning and/or outcomes, meeting standards, and the focus
on the design of multimedia as an aspect of online teaching.
Types of PD: 69% of teachers reported participating in ongoing training sessions, and
52% in limited one-time sessions. 34% had attended summer workshops.
When comparing ongoing training to one-time training sessions, school-wide models
used more one-time sessions (36% vs. 33%), while virtual and charter school models used
more ongoing training (37% vs. 25%).
Common themes across some models regarding design of PD included an emphasis on
“building community” and interaction, use of a train-the-trainer model, tiered training to
address needs of advanced teachers, and attendance at professional conferences and
participating in social networks as forms of PD.
PD offerings ranged on a continuum from “we don’t have a training program” to “over
30 professional development courses.”
Peer mentoring is a commonly reported form of PD (68% teachers, 82% administrators,
85% trainers), although several teachers reported inadequacies with their peer coach.
Virtual school programs reported the highest use of peer mentoring (78%), while
consortium models reported the lowest use of peer mentoring (60%).
Individualization of PD based on prior experience was reported most often by charter
school programs (28%), and reported least often by district wide models (5%).
Going Virtual! 6

7. Guidelines: Administrators reported relying most heavily on state guidelines (30%), as
well as self-developed guidelines (28%) to guide development of PD.
Content of PD: 75% of teachers reported receiving training in foundational knowledge in
the field of online teaching.
The highest reported technology tool training was in asynchronous tools (77%) and
multimedia presentation tools (66%). The lowest reported training in technology tools
was the use of design tools (26%).
The highest reported facilitation strategies training was in meeting the needs of multiple
learning styles (78%), and engagement and motivation in online learning (67%). The
lowest reported training in facilitation strategies was in differentiated instruction based
on data analysis (41%).
The highest reported lesson design training was in multimedia design principles (55%).
The lowest reported training in lesson design was the design of syllabi (21%).
Sequence of Training Topics: Many respondents reported the use of an initial training
session to introduce teachers to the features of the learning management system and
content in the system. A variety of options to continued training were mentioned,
including opportunities both internal and external to the school.
First-Year Topics: Highest reported content covered in first-year training included
knowledge of field of online teaching (63%), asynchronous communication tools (63%),
LMS tools (63%), and time management strategies (63%). Least report topics included
design tools (9%), graphic design principles (9%), and presentation tools (9%).
Second-Year Topics: In the second year of training, the highest reported content by
trainers were knowledge of the field of online teaching (70%), asynchronous
communication tools (70%) and synchronous communication tools (70%). Least emphasis
was given to graphic design principles of online lesson (20%), and instructional design
principles (20%). In contrast to year 1, 60% of trainers reported teaching multimedia
presentation tools in year 2.
Open ended comments from participants reflected both positive statements, as well as
issues and challenges, ranging from “Superior training and support. Much more than I
expect to use” to “I don’t feel our training was adequate. There was so much more I had
to learn by trial and error. A good part of our training was spent on learning things that
did not apply to my job at the school setting (being a homeroom teacher).”
This first phase of the Going Virtual! research series addressed the need to investigate the status
of PD for online K-12 teachers across the country. The data from this phase provides the
foundational knowledge to inform the next phase of the study in determining not only what
knowledge, skills and dispositions online teachers currently possess, but more importantly, the
unique needs as expressed by teachers themselves.
Going Virtual! 7

8. BACKGROUND
The Growing Need for Professional Development for K-12 Online
Teachers
The expansion in online or virtual education opportunities for students in elementary and
secondary grades continues at an astounding rate. An estimated 1,000,000 high school students
participate in online classes (O'Gorman, 2005). It is suggested that every state now has some
form of "cyber" or "virtual" school operating within its boundaries (Long, 2004), with 38 states
having either state-led online programs, policies informing online education, or both (Watson &
Ryan, 2006). Forces fueling the expansion include funding shortages, outdated facilities (Clark,
2001; Fulton, 2002), and policy initiatives supportive of expanded opportunities for alternative
routes to education (Hassell & Terrell, 2004; U. S. Department of Education, 2004; Web-Based
Education Commission, 2000). Particularly relevant is the National Educational Technology Plan
(2004) and its emphasis on e-learning as one of the key issues facing federal, state, and local
education agencies with recommendations to:
Provide every student access to e-learning.
Enable every teacher to participate in e-learning training.
Encourage the use of e-learning options to meet the No Child Left Behind requirements
for highly qualified teachers, supplemental services and parental choice.
Explore creative ways to fund e-learning opportunities.
Develop quality measures and accreditation standards for e-learning that mirror those
required for course credit. (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, p.42)
The unprecedented explosion of online courses has resulted in increased demand for online
teachers. Who are those teachers and how are they learning to teach online? And perhaps more
important, how does one successfully teach online? More often than not, we find a lot of new
online teachers who are struggling. Often, regular classroom teachers are asked to teach in an
online environment with little or no prior experience, and with limited training. As a result,
several states, as well as corporations supporting online schools, are attempting to address these
questions by developing competencies for online teachers. As an example, guidelines have been
developed by the National Educational Association (NEA) (2006a; 2006b), and the Southern
Regional Educational Board (SREB) (2003; 2006a; 2006b; 2006c; 2006d). The SREB guidelines have
also been adopted by the North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL) (2007) but with
the addition of content to address 21st Century skills.
However, along with these emerging competencies and standards is also a call for additional
empirical research on effective professional development for K-12 online teachers (Dawley, 2007;
NEA, 2006; Rice, 2006). While higher education has a more developed research base on best
practice in online teaching due to the longer implementation cycle of online classes in university
settings, the same cannot be said for the K-12 arena. As a result, educators and policymakers
designing competencies for K-12 teachers currently rely on the research base from higher
education and on the personal experience of trainers and educators in K-12 online education. This
reliance may result in unintended negative consequences. While there are some consistencies
between effective teaching in higher education and K-12 education, such as providing timely
Going Virtual! 8

9. feedback, and while there is value to the personal input of experienced online teacher trainers,
there are also undocumented needs of K-12 online teachers due to the lack of empirical research
in the field, the multiple unique contexts of K-12 online schools, and the unique and differing
needs of young children versus. those of adult learners.
Models of Teacher Professional Development
Traditionally, most models of professional development are based on a stage model, wherein the
professional teacher moves through stages of cognitive development such as novice, advanced
beginner, competent, proficient, and expert level (Berliner, 1994; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986;
Sternberg & Ben-Zeev, 2001). Although these models may vary in the number of stages and
nature of each stage, they are all similar in that they emphasize the growth of the teacher in fixed
sequences or stages in regard to both knowledge and skill acquisition, and have been criticized
(Dall' Alba & Sandberg, 2006) for:
Their lack of empirical evidence of effectiveness,
Focusing on cross-sectional studies versus those investigated over time,
The absence of adequate explanations for learners who fail to reach expert status,
Overlooking the importance of contextualized training versus acquisition of skills and
knowledge outside of embodied practice, and
Overlooking the professional skill being developed in favor of a focus on the stages of
acquisition.
To address these criticisms, Dall' Alba and Sandberg (2006) propose an alternative model of
professional development emphasizing a step-wise progression of growth, on both horizontal
and vertical dimensions. Whereas their horizontal dimension represents the practical knowledge
and skills typically accounted for in traditional stage models (but not in a stage-like fashion),
their proposed vertical dimension takes into account the variations of, and in, practice with
practical knowledge and skills. The term "embodied practice" is used to describe this inclusion of
both dimensions in the delivery and evaluation of professional development. Larreamendy-
Joerns and Leinhardt (2006) address this as "epistimetic engagement"—learning does not occur in
isolation from the context in which newly acquired knowledge will be used.
As we see in the figure, teacher 1 is a teacher
who has continued to learn additional skills and
Embodied Practice of
knowledge; however, her variation of
Understanding
Teacher 1 knowledge and skills in her given context has
Teacher 2 not changed. Contrast that to teacher 2 who has
Teacher 3 moved both horizontally in her knowledge and
skill base, as well as vertically in her ability to
adapt those knowledge and skills to her given
teaching context. These forms of variation in
Skill Progression teaching practice can occur for historical, social,
or contextual reasons. Because online schools
vary widely in their design and implementation, Dall'Alba & Sandberg's proposed alternative
model of professional development provides an analytic framework for not only understanding
Going Virtual! 9

10. the online teacher's knowledge and skill development, but for examining that development in the
contextual perspective of a particular online school model.
Going Virtual! Study Series
The proposed research agenda for this series is designed to allow exploration of the contextual
nature of professional development for K-12 online teachers. The agenda will consist of three
distinctive phases of data collection and analysis outlined below:
Current Phase
Phase 1: Descriptive
The Status of Professional Development for K-12 Online Teachers
Phase One examines the status of professional development for K-12 online teachers. What
practices and models of teacher professional development are being used in K-12 virtual schools
and programs across the country? What are the contextual factors (such as school philosophy,
goals, state policies) that influence the design of that professional development? Questions
guiding this phase of the development include items related to demographics and current
practice:
1. What are the demographics of K-12 online teachers?
2. How many teachers are receiving training?
3. When does training occur?
4. How often does training occur?
5. What is the sequence of training?
6. What types/models of training are used?
7. Does training meet certification requirements?
Remaining Phases of Study
Phase 2 – Descriptive
Identifying the Unique Needs and Challenges of K-12 Online Teachers
Phase Two will identify the unique needs and challenges of K-12 online teachers, and how they vary
according to the context of the school or program model, and amount of prior teaching
experience. Guiding questions for this phase of research will include:
1. What content, methods, and strategies for teaching online in K-12 are needed and
desired?
2. How do these needs vary compared to regular classroom instructors?
3. How do the content, methods, and strategies vary across models of online K-12
schools and programs?
4. What delivery methods for professional development are preferred by online
teachers?
Going Virtual! 10

11. 5. What type of instructional supports are K-12 online teachers seeking in their
professional development training? (i.e., course design, time on topic, trainer
qualities, use of mentors)
6. What challenges do teachers and trainers face in participating in professional
development? (i.e., time zones, technology availability)
Phase 3 – Evaluative
Effective Professional Development of K-12 Online Teachers
Phase Three of the research will focus on the outcomes of various professional development
models in terms of the ability to meet the unique needs of K-12 online teachers, skill progression and
variations in impact on teaching practice. Tentative questions for this phase are listed below, are
expected to evolve further based on formative data collected in prior phases.
1. What level of alignment is demonstrated between various professional development
models and practices and the articulated needs and challenges of K-12 online
teachers?
2. To what extent do professional development models and practices meet the needs
and challenges of K-12 online teachers, as measured by variations in impact on
teaching practice and identified skill progression?
3. What key themes are emerging in training K-12 online teachers, based on alignment
of needs met and amount of impact on teaching practice?
4. How might these key themes inform policy, practice, and future research of training
K-12 online teachers?
Going Virtual! 11

12. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
In this study, a non-random purposive sample of 259 online K-12 stakeholders from virtual
public schools, programs and organizations across the United States completed a comprehensive
survey delivered via the web. The respondents represent a cross section of teachers (167),
administrators/site coordinators (61) and professional development trainers or directors (15),
from 41 different schools or online programs in more than 30 states. Administrators consisted of
principals, assistant principals, superintendents, heads of school, directors, CEOs, technology
coordinators, and others in supervisory roles, and represent significantly more than 1,200
teachers in total. See Appendix A for a complete list of participant school and program
affiliations, as well as a detailed breakdown of participants’ state of employment.
Two main questions were addressed: “What practices and models of teacher professional
development are being used in K-12 virtual schools and programs across the country?” and
“What are the contextual factors (such as school philosophy, goals, state policies) that influence
the design of that professional development?” This report addresses specific questions guiding
this phase of the development, including items related to demographics and current practice:
1. What are the demographics of K-12 online teachers?
2. How many teachers are receiving training?
3. Is prior teaching experience considered in training design?
4. When and how often does training occur?
5. Describe the school philosophy and goals towards learners, curriculum, and
instructional methods.
6. What is the sequence of training?
7. What types/models of training are used?
8. Does training meet certification requirements?
Participants were enlisted through a variety of means. A link to the survey was posted (twice) on
the discussion forum for the North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL). The
NACOL clearinghouse was searched and individual emails were sent to online K-12 school and
program administrators and educational technology or distance learning state level
administrators from all 50 states. In addition, known K-12 online teachers, administrators, and
trainers were contacted through email.
Going Virtual! 12

13. DETAILED SURVEY FINDINGS
This section provides findings in the key areas outlined below:
School or Program Model Affiliation
Demographics
Professional Development: Who, When, and How?
Professional Development Types
Professional Development Content
Open-Ended Comments
School or Program Model Affiliation
A major factor driving data analysis for this study is the development of an analytic framework
for considering context. One obvious contextual influence is school or program affiliation. In this
study, respondents indicated affiliations with a variety of school and program models. These are
illustrated in the table below. Models have been organized into a tiered framework which
emerged from past research (Rice, 2005; Watson, 2005) and the results of this study. The
framework is based on the fact that the vast majority of programs will fall under one of the first
two categories; Virtual School or Supplemental Program. Most will also meet the criteria of either
a State-wide, District-wide, or School-wide accountability system, and some may meet additional
criteria for Consortium or Charter School. In many cases the data presented in the following
sections will be analyzed by respondent group (i.e. teacher, administrator, and trainer) as well as
by responses based on affiliation with a program or school model.
SCHOOL OR PROGRAM MODELS REPRESENTED
Response Response
Count Percent
Virtual School (students attend full time and move through grades) 175 68.6%
Supplemental Program (students attend part-time and/or receive credit 59 23.1%
from another institution)
State-wide (the program or school is accountable to and managed by the 109 42.7%
state and/or the program or school is legislated by the state)
District-wide (the program or school is accountable to and/or managed 46 18.0%
by the district)
School-wide (the program or school is accountable to and/or managed 25 9.8%
by the school)
Consortium (courses and/or teachers are shared across state, district, or 27 10.6%
school borders; subgroup of virtual schools or supplemental programs)
Charter School (sub-group of virtual schools; can be state-wide or 88 34.5%
district-wide)
Other (see below) 6 2.4%
Note: Percentages will not calculate to 100 because of dual associations (n=255). Other responses included
UMOHS—Kaplan Virtual Education (n=2), private not-for-profit digital content provider, all models, and contract
school.
Going Virtual! 13

14. Demographics
Experience and Education of Survey Respondents
The experience and education of the teachers, trainers, and administrators who responded to the
survey can be seen in the two tables below. The majority of all respondents have been involved in
online education for 5 years or less (93%). In general, they have between 1 and 15 years
experience in the field of education overall with over half of the teachers reporting a master’s
degree or better. Sixty-three percent of teachers have five or more years of total teaching
experience, with 35% reporting 10 or more years of teaching experience.
HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN AN ONLINE TEACHER, ADMINISTRATOR, OR TRAINER?
Teacher Administrator Trainer
Response Response Response Response Response Response
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
≤ 5 years 166 93.3% 42 73.0% 7 9 75.0%
>5 years and ≤ 10 years 10 5.6% 11 19.3% 2 16.7%
> 10 years and ≤ 15 years 2 1.1% 2 3.5% 1 08.3%
> 15 years and ≤ 20 years 2 3.5%
Total Respondents 178 100.0% 57 100.0% 12 100%
HOW MANY TOTAL YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN A TEACHER, ADMINISTRATOR, OR TRAINER?
Teacher Administrator Trainer
Response Response Response Response Response Response
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
≤ 5 years 66 37.1% 23 41.1% 5 41.7%
>5 years and ≤ 10 years 50 28.1% 13 23.2% 4 33.3%
> 10 years and ≤ 15 years 28 15.7% 9 16.1% 3 25.0%
> 15 years and ≤ 20 years 13 7.3% 3 5.4% 0 0.0%
> 20 years and ≤ 25 years 6 3.4% 1 1.7% 0 0.0%
> 25 years and ≤ 30 7 3.9% 3 5.4% 0 0.0%
> 30 years 8 4.5% 4 7.1% 0 0.0%
Total Respondents 178 100% 56 100% 12 100.0%
Grade Levels and Subject Areas Served by Survey Respondents
Teachers and administrators indicated that all grade levels are served by their programs with
lower numbers at the earlier grades, and peaking at the 8th, 9th, and 10th grade levels as illustrated
in the chart and tables below.
Going Virtual! 14

15. GRADE LEVELS SERVED BY RESPONDENTS
100%
90%
Teachers Administrators
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
When examining responses to subject areas taught, the majority of teachers indicated that they
teach general elementary subjects. In addition, the number of teachers who indicated they teach
History, English, Mathematics, and Science was fairly evenly divided.
SUBJECT AREAS TAUGHT (TEACHERS)
Response Response
Count Percent
General Elementary 61 33.9%
History/Social Studies 41 22.8%
English 40 22.2%
Mathematics 38 21.1%
Science 33 18.3%
PE/Health 15 8.3%
Special Education 14 7.8%
Arts 5 9.0%
Foreign Languages 5 9.0%
Multidisciplinary/Integrated Course 4 2.2%
Other 19 10.6%
Note: Other responses included, Life Skills/Preparing for College, Journalism (n=3), Psychology (n=2), ESL,
Counselor (n=3), Academic Achievement, Driver’s Ed, Technology, Reading (n=3), PACE (Program for All
Children to Excel) is a program for children that did not do well on state tests. It included weekly online lessons
performed via Adobe Connect Professional
Professional Development: Who, When, and How?
Teachers who Participated in Professional Development
Teachers were asked if they had received professional development specifically related to K-12
online instruction and, similarly, we asked administrators if the teachers under their supervision
had received training. Of the 167 teacher respondents, 157 (86.3%) responded they had received
training and 25 (13.7%) responded they had not received training. Of the 61 administrators, 52
(89.7%) indicated that their teachers had received training, four (6.9%) responded that their
teachers had not received training and two (3.5%) responded that they didn’t know.
Going Virtual! 15

16. Eighty-three percent of teachers, and 59% of administrators reported that training is required by
their school or program. In addition, of the 25 teachers who responded that they had not received
training, 15 of those indicated that training had been made available to them. Of the six
administrators who responded that their teachers had not received training, two indicated that
training had been made available to them.
ONLINE K-12 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (TEACHERS)
Yes No Don’t
Know
1. Have you received training related specifically to K-12 online 86.3% 13.7%
instruction?
2. Is training required by your school or program provider? 83.8% 10.6% 5.6%
Note: Question 1: n=182, question 2: n=179
ONLINE K-12 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (ADMINISTRATORS)
Yes No Don’t
Know
1. Have any of the teachers in your school, program or 89.7% 6.9% 3.5%
organization participated in training related specifically to K-12
online instruction?
2. Does your school or program require teachers to participate 56.9% 37.9% 5.2%
in professional development training specifically related to K-12
online instruction?
Note: Question 1: n=58, question 2: n=58
Similar results were revealed looking across model of school or program. Significantly more than
80% of respondents from all models indicated that they had either received training or that
training had been provided1. The highest response (92.7%) for this question was reported by
those who reported an affiliation with Supplemental Programs.
TEACHERS WHO RECEIVED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(SORTED BY MODEL)
Virtual School 88.3%
Supplemental Program 92.7%
State-Wide 88.0%
District-Wide 86.1%
School-Wide 83.3%
Consortium 88.5%
Charter School 86.0%
Other 86.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1
Note: Each response (based on the model) was treated separately. For example, if a person responded that his or her
school or program was “Virtual school” and “School-wide”, that person’s responses to the remaining questions would be
counted for both models. Therefore, all counts and percentages described for model of school or program reflect
responses, and not individuals, as a single person’s responses could be counted in more than one model.
Going Virtual! 16

17. Few states currently require professional development related specifically to online K-12
instruction for online teachers; Alabama, Kansas, and South Dakota (Watson, 2006). However, we
were interested in determining if the training online teachers received might facilitate
advancement within their profession by providing certification or university credits. Details are
included in the tables below.
CERTIFICATION AND CREDITS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (TEACHERS)
Yes No Don’t
Know
1. Did the training you received qualify for or meet your 43.1% 27.8% 26.5%
state requirements for recertification?
2. Did the training you received provide CEU, graduate, 60.5% 30.3% 8.6%
or other professional development credit through a
university or other crediting institution?
Note: Question 1: n=147, question 2: n=151
CERTIFICATION AND CREDITS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (TRAINERS)
All Some None Don’t
Know
1. How much of the training you offer qualifies for or 30.8% 38.5% 15.4% 15.4%
meets state requirements for certification?
2. How much of the training you offer provides CEU, 38.5% 30.8% 30.8% 0.0%
graduate, or other professional development credit
through a university or other crediting institution?
Note: Question 1: n = 13, question 2: n=13
When Professional Development Occurs
The highest teacher-reported period
when professional development
WHEN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OCCURS
occurred was during the first year
(61%). Professional development each 100%
Teachers Administrators
year of teaching was reported by more 90%
than 40% of teachers. Thirty eight 80%
percent of teachers also reported 70%
receiving professional development 60%
prior to teaching in an online school or 50%
program. Conversely, this means that 40%
62% report they did not receive any 30%
professional development prior to 20%
teaching online. However, 10%
administrators report that 74% of the 0%
Prior to During 1st After 1st Year Each Year
teachers under their supervision
teaching online Year
received professional development
prior to teaching online.
Going Virtual! 17

18. When the data is sorted by program or school model, those associated with Supplemental
Programs report the highest occurrence of professional development prior to teaching online
(38.1%), almost double the responses for Virtual Schools and Charter Schools.
WHEN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OCCURS
(SORTED BY MODEL - TEACHERS & ADMINISTRATORS)
22.5% 38.1% 9.2% 26.1% 4.1%
Virtual School
38.1% 28.6% 3.8% 25.7% 3.8%
Supplemental Program
29.1% 33.1% 8.6% 24.5% 0.04
State-Wide
30.2% 30.2% 13.2% 24.5% 7.9%
District-Wide
28.6% 32.1% 7.1% 21.4% 7.1% 3.6%
School-Wide
32.6% 28.3% 8.7% 26.1% 2.2%2.2%
Consortium
21.2% 37.3% 11.9% 27.1% 2.5%
Charter School
20.0% 30.0% 6.7% 30.0% 13.3%
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Prior to Teaching online During 1st Year After 1st Year Each Year Other Don't Know
How Professional Development was Delivered
Training was delivered in a variety of formats, with the vast majority of respondents (teachers,
administrators, and trainers) reporting a mixed approach across individual training sessions, i.e.
online training, either alone or in combination with other forms of training (Online 46%, Hybrid
27%, Face-to-Face 27%).
HOW PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WAS DELIVERED
However, when looking at teacher (TEACHERS)
reported data, 12% reported receiving
training delivered only in a face-to-face Hybrid
format (see figure). 31%
Online
48%
Face-to-Face Only
12%
Face-to-Face
9%
Note: Data represents training formats from
all training sessions attended by teachers
Going Virtual! 18

19. Who Provided Professional Development?
Responsibility for providing
professional development WHO PROVIDED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?
appears to fall on the school
or program with which 100%
respondents were affiliated, Teachers Administrators
90%
as reported by a majority of
80%
teachers and administrators. 70.2%
70%
Teachers also reported
receiving some of their 60%
46.8%
training through university 50%
courses. 40%
29.8% 27.8%
30%
21.2%
20%
10% 4.2% 4.6% 8.5%
0%
School or Program Organization University District
When the data are sorted by model, the majority of respondents indicated that their affiliated
school or program has been primarily responsible for providing professional development,
although differences were noted when comparing School-Wide (70%) and Consortium (35%)
models. Not the emphasis on School-Wide professional development at the school/program level
versus Consortium professional development at the organizational level.
WHO PROVIDED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?
(SORTED BY MODEL - TEACHERS & ADMINISTRATORS)
56.2% 14.8% 21.3% 3.6% 3.6%
Virtual School 0.6%
49.1% 27.3% 9.1% 3.6% 9.1%
Supplemental Program 1.8%
53.3% 13.3% 0.219 2.9% 7.6%
State-Wide 1.0%
52.8% 16.7% 11.1% 16.7% 2.8%
District-Wide
70.0% 10.0% 5.0% 10.0% 5.0%
School-Wide
35.5% 29.0% 19.4% 9.7% 3.2%
Consortium 3.2%
51.6% 17.6% 26.4% 4.4%
Charter School
56.3% 25.0% 6.3% 6.3%
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
School or Program Organization College or University My District Other Don't Know
Going Virtual! 19

20. The Design of Professional Development
Philosophy and Goals
Administrators were asked to describe the philosophy, goals, or policies that underscore the
training program for their local school or program. Most administrators described what could be
labeled as a “professional” orientation to the professional development of teachers. This
approach involves giving the teacher the skills, capability, and knowledge in order to effectively
teach online, and that training be ongoing. Representative comments included:
“Teaching is teaching. But, teaching online requires a different set of skills and a
different attitude towards student responsibility and teacher guidance.”
“The training program is focused on orienting a new instructor to the program.
It is also focused on continuous training that will help to enhance the instructor’s
capabilities and knowledge level.”
“All staff [members] are strongly encouraged to participate in conferences,
workshops, courses, and similar activities relative to their assignments and
continued professional growth.”
Additional areas mentioned by more than one administrator included the need for interaction
between teachers and students, to improve student learning, and to meet state/national
standards, and the focus on the design of multimedia as an aspect of online teaching.
Representative comments include:
“Communication /interaction with students serves as the primary
goal…Differentiation is key in ensuring that all students are successful.”
“…The ongoing training is required to keep teachers current, develop strong
relationships between teachers, and to allow for knowledge-sharing between
teachers.”
“…To improve our program and improve our student success rate with online
learning. Be prepared for national standards and/or state-mandated training for
online teachers.”
“Most of the training is designed to enhance online learning through multimedia
production.”
“The big push right now is to engage students with interactive [activities],
movies, gizmos, that they are not passive learners.”
Going Virtual! 20

21. Professional Development Types
Teachers were asked to indicate the types of professional development activities in which they
participated. Ongoing Training Session received the highest number of responses as shown
below:
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TYPES
(TEACHERS)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0% 69.1%
70.0%
60.0% 52.3%
46.3%
50.0%
40.0% 33.6%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0% 4.7%
0.0%
Summer Graduate Ongoing Limited, One- Other
Workshops Courses Training Time Session
Session
The highest reported response, when the data was sorted by model, was also Ongoing Training
from those affiliated with Virtual Schools (37.2%) and Charter Schools (37.2%). In addition, there
are a higher number of responses for One-Time Sessions by those affiliated with School-Wide
programs.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TYPES
(SORTED BY MODEL - TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS & TRAINERS)
10.6% 23.4% 37.2% 25.5% 3.3%
Virtual School
25.6% 19.2% 27.2% 26.4% 1.6%
Supplemental Program
21.7% 21.7% 32.8% 22.2% 1.1%
State-Wide 0.6%
12.7% 20.6% 33.3% 27.0% 6.3%
District-Wide
3.0% 15.2% 33.3% 36.4% 9.1% 3.0%
School-Wide
20.0% 26.0% 26.0% 26.0% 2.0%
Consortium 2.0%
9.5% 25.5% 37.2% 24.8%
Charter School
17.9% 23.1% 25.6% 28.2% 5.1%
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Summer Workshop Graduate Course Ongoing Training One-time Session Other Don't Know
Going Virtual! 21

22. Teachers were asked to provide the number of each training opportunity, directly related to
online instruction, that they participated in. The highest reported responses indicated
participation in at least one graduate course (42.2%), two limited, one-time sessions (29.3%), one
summer workshop (37.7%), and six ongoing training opportunities (26.2%).
NUMBER OF TEACHER REPORTED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Number of training opportunities
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Summer Workshop 27.5% 37.7% 13.0% 8.7% 2.9% 7.2% 2.9%
Graduate Course 18.1% 42.2% 14.5% 4.8% 3.6% 1.2% 15.7%
Ongoing Training 8.7% 20.4% 25.2% 12.6% 5.8% 1.0% 26.2%
Limited One-Time Session 9.8% 17.1% 29.3% 11.0% 12.2% 2.4% 18.3%
Comments on Professional Development Types
To provide more insight into the specific attributes of professional development opportunities for
teachers, we asked both teachers and trainers to provide a detailed description through open-
ended responses. Due to the variety of training models, programs, and options, this open-
response question provided a plethora of means by which online teachers are receiving
professional development. Common themes reported include:
An initial training session, either face-to-face or online, to familiarize teachers with the
school or program, and the features of the particular learning management system used
by the program.
Ongoing training sessions are typically offered and/or required throughout the year.
Ongoing training may be handled directly by larger schools or programs, while some
schools allow teachers to receive professional development through options external to
the school.
Many reported an emphasis on the need to “build community” among teachers,
students, and/or parents, as an aspect of training.
Larger organizations reported the use of a train-the-trainer model wherein training was
received by trainers at the organizational level who then returned to their regions or local
contexts to provide training, implying that organization training must be contextualized
to meet various state requirements.
Some organizations are reporting the use of “tiered” professional development models
wherein experienced online teachers have the opportunity to receive advanced training.
Several respondents reported the use of professional conferencing and social-network
activities, such as attending webinars, as an accepted form of professional development
in their schools.
Continuum of Professional Development
Training models ranged on a continuum. Representative comments illustrating that continuum
include:
Going Virtual! 22

23. “We don’t have a training program.”
“2 orientation workshops on-line.”
“We did an online quiz and test that took about 1 week to complete.”
“Four-day workshop for 8 hours a day.”
“2 days 4 times a year.”
“Summer workshop that lasted one week. Online classes that last from 4-6 weeks.”
“Mostly college courses that lasted for 3 hours one night each week, or summer courses
that were 3 hours, 2 days/week.”
“…We average 5-6 staff training sessions per year, approximately 16-20 days annually.”
“Offerings vary from 1 day f2f and 4 weeks online to 2 days f2f and 6 weeks online, to
monthly f2f and 18 weeks online.”
“15 week online graduate course in K-12 online teaching.”
“Over 30 professional development courses for educators, administrators,
paraprofessionals, site-based council community members, counselors, etc. Most courses
are 7 weeks in length and offer 12-24 hours of CEU credits.”
Mentoring or Peer Coaching
We were also interested in determining the extent to which mentoring, peer coaching, and
individualized training were considered in professional development opportunities. Sixty eight
percent of teachers, 82% of administrators, and 85% of trainers reported the use of mentoring or
peer coaching strategies. If a respondent indicated “other,” their responses generally indicated
either some form of mentoring was available, was being developed, or the availability of a less
formal form of mentoring.
IS MENTORING OR PEER COACHING PART OF PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOMENT?
100%
Teachers Administrators Trainers
90%
82.2% 84.6%
80%
67.6%
70%
60%
50%
40%
27.8%
30%
20% 15.4%
11.1% 6.6%
10% 4.6% 0.0%
0%
Yes No Other
Going Virtual! 23

24. Responses sorted by school or program model indicate high use of mentoring or peer coaching
strategies by virtually all programs or schools with a low of 60% for those affiliated with
Consortiums.
IS MENTORING OR PEER COACHING PART OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?
(SORTED BY MODEL - TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS & TRAINERS)
78.3% 18.9% 2.8%
Virtual School
66.7% 27.5% 5.9%
Supplemental Program
65.9% 28.7% 4.7%
State-Wide 1.2%
74.2% 22.6% 3.2%
District-Wide
73.7% 21.1% 5.3%
School-Wide
60.0% 25.0% 10.0%
Consortium 5.0%
76.1% 21.1%
Charter School
87.5% 12.5%
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No Other Don't Know
Individualized Professional Development
In addition, one half of trainers indicated that professional development was individualized
based on prior teaching experience. Twenty-four percent of administrators responded that their
training was modified to reflect prior experience and 21% of teachers responded that they were
given options based on their prior experience. As the following chart illustrates, the findings
when the data were sorted by program or school model are similar.
WAS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INDIVIDUALIZED BASED ON PRIOR EXPERIENCE?
(SORTED BY MODEL - TEACHERS & TRAINERS)
21.7% 45.0% 16.7% 15.8%
Virtual School
12.5% 65.6% 9.4% 12.5%
Supplemental Program
21.7% 52.2% 13.0% 13.0%
State-Wide
5.3% 63.2% 26.3% 5.3%
District-Wide
16.7% 25.0% 33.3% 25.0%
School-Wide
12.5% 75.0% 6.3% 6.3%
Consortium
27.6% 34.5% 22.4% 15.5%
Charter School
45.5% 36.4% 9.1%
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes No Don't Know N/A No Prior Experience Going Virtual! 24

25. Respondents who indicated professional development was modified were provided an
opportunity to explain how. A sample of these descriptions follows:
“We have professional development at every other staff meeting in which we cover
many different topics. More choices will be available next year.”
“If they see a need, they find a way to offer it.”
“Most of the choices were mine, some were required.”
“Since I had basic tech competency certificate, I was offered the opportunity to build
on that experience by learning new programs, effective online communication and
teaching strategies, etc. I was also provided with a tremendous amount of personal
support from more experienced online teachers and from my subject area
coordinator.”
“We are able to attend conferences or attend college classes.”
“Had a choice of classes to take.”
“We get to choose the workshops most beneficial to us and our area.”
“Professional development was tailored relative to my content area (secondary
mathematics) and experience teaching online.”
“Within our school setting, it is a priority to "play to the strengths" of each staff
member. While professional development for all contains common components so
that we are all on the same page, staff [members] are encouraged to develop a
professional development plan individually and to pursue projects that meet the
needs of our students, as well as utilizing the talents and past experiences of staff.”
Professional Development Content
Guidelines Used in Professional Development
In order to determine what knowledge and skills administrators deem important for their
teachers, they were asked what guidelines, if any, they follow in developing a professional
development program. Thirty percent of administrators reported using state guidelines, and
about the same number (28.7%) also reported using self-developed guidelines to direct
professional development.
Going Virtual! 25

26. WHAT GUIDELINES DO YOU FOLLOW IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM?
(ADMINISTRATORS)
Response Response
Count Percent
ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) 6 8.6%
SREB (Southern Regional Educational Board) 3 4.3%
NEA (National Educational Association) 1 1.1%
State in which school resides 21 30.0%
Other state guidelines 4 5.7%
Self-developed guidelines 20 28.6%
Do not follow any guidelines 4 5.7%
Don't know 11 15.7%
Professional Development Content Reported by Teachers
Teachers were asked about the topics of professional development they had received. Topics
were divided into four major categories: Foundational Knowledge, Tools, Facilitation Strategies,
and Lesson Design.
o Foundational knowledge: 74% of teachers received training on practice-based knowledge,
57% reported receiving training on theoretical foundations.
o Technology tools: 91% of teachers reported receiving training in how to use learning
management systems. Seventy-eight percent of teachers reported receiving training in
both synchronous and asynchronous technologies.
o Lesson design: The most-reported topic under lesson design was “multimedia design
principles” (55%). More than 31% of teachers reported receiving no training in online
lesson design.
o Facilitation strategies: The most-reported topic under facilitation strategies was “meeting
the needs of students with multiple learning styles in the online classroom” (78%).
Specific details regarding content included in teacher professional development is illustrated in
the four following charts:
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTENT: FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE
(TEACHERS) 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90. 100
0.0 10.
% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% .0%
Know ledge of the field of online teaching and learning
74.8%
Foundational principles, generalizations, or theories
57.1%
related to online teaching and learning
No foundational content or concepts w ere addressed
15.0%
in my training
Other foundational concepts that have been
12.2%
addressed in your training?
Going Virtual! 26

27. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTENT: TECHNOLOGY TOOLS
(TEACHERS) 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
0.0 10.0
% % % % % % % % % %
Asynchronous (delayed time) communication
77.2%
tools
Multimedia presentation tools (i.e. Pow erPoint,
66.4%
Snag It, Camtasia, etc.)
Data analysis tools (i.e. Microsoft Excel) 43.0%
Assessment tools (i.e. QuizStar, RubiStar, LMS
40.3%
test generator)
Design tools (i.e. html editing, Web page creation
26.9%
tools)
Other tools that have been addressed in your
9.4%
training?
None of these topics w ere covered in my training 0.0%
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTENT: LESSON DESIGN
(TEACHERS) 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90. 100
0.0 10.
% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% .0%
Multimedia design principles (i.e. the appropriate use
54.6%
of text, graphic, audio, and video representations)
Instructional design principles for online lessons 41.8%
Graphic design principles of online lessons (i.e. font
35.5%
size, contrast, negative w hite space)
None of these topics w ere covered in my training 31.9%
Design of syllabi 21.3%
Other lesson or curriculum design concepts that
1.4%
have been addressed in your training
Going Virtual! 27

28. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTENT: FACILITATION STRATEGIES
(TEACHERS)
0.0 10. 20. 30. 40. 50. 60. 70. 80. 90. 100
% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% .0%
Meeting the needs of students w ith multiple learning
78.1%
styles in the online classroom
Engagement and motivation in online activities and
67.1%
lessons
Building community w ithin the online classroom 65.8%
Promoting appropriate student netiquette (w eb
63.7%
etiquette)
Meeting the needs of students w ith disabilities in the
62.3%
online classroom
managing groups and collaboration in the online
58.9%
classroom
Effective asynchronous discussions 56.9%
Time management 54.8%
Promoting parental involvement 54.1%
Effective synchronous discussions 51.4%
Identifying at-risk students 43.2%
Active listening 41.8%
Differentiated or individualized instruction based on
41.8%
data analysis
None of these topics w ere covered in my training 4.8%
Other facilitation strategies that have been addressed
3.4%
in your training?
Going Virtual! 28

29. Professional Development Content Reported by Trainers
Trainers were asked about the content and concepts covered in the first two years of professional
development. Specifically, they were asked to select content and concepts covered in the first
year of training and then to select content and concepts covered in the second year. The question
was developed to get at any differences in content covered in initial training versus more
advanced training. Trainers indicated a large number of items included in professional
development over a two year period. The charts below provide detail. The content has been
sorted from highest occurrence to lowest in the first year. What is perhaps most notable is what is
not covered. Multimedia presentation tools (0.0%), design of syllabi (0.0%), assessment tools
(18.2%), data analysis tools (18.2%), strategies for differentiated instruction (9.1%), and design
tools and concepts (9.1%) were the content least covered in year one. Many of these were covered
in year two but at lower percentages, in general, than other content and concepts.
Going Virtual! 29

30. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTENT COVERED IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS
(TRAINERS)
Know ledge of the field of online teaching and
63.6%
learning (i.e. standards, terminology,
70.0%
classifications, methods, or trends)
63.6%
Asynchronous (delayed time) communication tools
70.0%
Learning Management System Tools (i.e.
63.6%
gradebook, test generator, dropbox,
60.0%
announcements, content storage, etc.)
63.6%
Time management strategies
60.0%
54.5%
Synchronous (real time) communication tools
70.0%
Strategies for meeting the needs of students w ith 54.5%
multiple learning styles in the online classroom 50.0%
Strategies for engagement and motivation in online 54.5%
activities and lessons 60.0%
54.5%
Strategies for promoting parental involvement
40.0%
Year 1
Foundational principles, generalizations, or theories Year 2
45.5%
related to online teaching and learning (i.e. theory
50.0%
of distance learning, learning theory)
Strategies for building community w ithin the online 45.5%
classroom 50.0%
Strategies for managing groups and collaboration 45.5%
in the online classroom 40.0%
Strategies for facilitating effective asynchronous 45.5%
discussions 60.0%
Strategies for facilitating effective synchronous 45.5%
discussions 60.0%
Going Virtual! 30

31. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTENT COVERED IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS
(TRAINERS - CONTINUED)
S trategies for meeting the needs of s tudents w ith 36.4%
dis abilities in the online c las s room 50.0%
36.4%
S trategies for identifying at-ris k s tudents
40.0%
S trategies for promoting appropriate s tudent 36.4%
netiquette (w eb etiquette) 50.0%
36.4%
A c tive lis tening tec hniques
30.0%
27.3%
Other c ontent or c onc epts c overed in training
30.0%
A s s es s ment tools (i.e. Quiz S tar, RubiS tar, L MS 18.2%
tes t generator) 30.0%
18.2%
Data analys is tools (i.e. Mic ros oft Ex c el)
60.0%
S trategies for differentiated or individualiz ed 18.2%
ins truc tion bas ed on data analys is 40.0%
Y ear 1
Multimedia des ign princ iples (i.e. the appropriate Y ear 2
18.2%
us e of tex t, graphic , audio, and video
30.0%
repres entations )
Des ign tools (i.e. html editing, Web page c reation 9.1%
tools ) 30.0%
Graphic des ign princ iples of online les s ons (i.e. 9.1%
font s iz e, c ontras t, negative w hite s pac e) 20.0%
9.1%
Ins truc tional des ign princ iples for online les s ons
20.0%
Multimedia pres entation tools (i.e. Pow erPoint, 0.0%
S nag It, C amtas ia, etc .) 60.0%
0.0%
Des ign of s yllabi
0.0%
Going Virtual! 31

32. Open-Ended Comments
Survey participants were provided an opportunity to make additional comments at the end of
the survey. Responses were fairly evenly divided between positive statements regarding the
support of particular schools and programs in meeting the needs of teachers through professional
development and those comments providing insight into challenges and issues facing all
stakeholders.
Positive Statements
Several schools and programs received very positive comments regarding not only their
professional development processes, but also the attitudes and commitment to quality
education for the students they serve. A sampling of positive comments is included below:
“_____ has been a pleasure to work with and for. It is a very professional group of
individuals who are genuinely interested in providing the highest level of online
education to its students.”
“I work for both ______ and ______ and I received very beneficial training from both.
It is information that I have applied in my classroom and seen results. I am very
grateful for all the training that is offered to me and look forward to this summer's
conference for both _____ and _____.”
“Superior training and support. Much more than I expect to use.”
“Having completed my Master’s Degree with an online program, I was highly
impressed with the program that ______ uses and the tools that they provide and
teach to their instructors to better meet the needs of our learners.”
“Thorough, specific, clear and concise. We are developing training for other online
high schools.”
“_____ really tries to develop the teacher's online abilities. The training is extensive
but teachers come out of it feeling that they have developed their online skills
considerably.”
“Our district training program launches this year in its expanded format. The district
is slow to move toward the virtual environment, but I am hopeful that this will give
us the opportunity to ensure high quality learning experiences for our students. So
often, we are encouraged (or required!) to begin a new initiative without the time to
carefully plan and reflect on the experience. I know that our venture into online
learning in my district is moving at a snail's pace. As a public school district in a state
facing major economic troubles, we have limited financial resources to draw upon.”
Going Virtual! 32

33. Issues and Challenges
Issues or challenges suggested in the open-ended comments mainly reflect the difficulties in
adjusting to the quickly changing landscape of virtual education in the K-12 realm. Some
respondents indicated a general feeling of inadequacy in professional development and a
perception that, although they are receiving training, it is mostly reactive rather than
proactive. Some also suggested that training prior to employment was more effective than
the limited efforts within the program or school. A sampling of comments is included
below:
“My training was adequate. I don't know if there is a program that could cover every
possible topic in education, especially online education.”
“I wish it would have been more. I am an experienced teacher and have taken online
courses during my career.... I intend to take more classes on online instruction in the
near future. If I were a new teacher, I would have been in trouble. My trainer, while a
nice person, was not particularly engaged.... He went over the basics with me during
the in-house training, but was only sporadically available thereafter.”
“Understandably, in-house training has been largely a reactive, task-specific
experience to address issues that arise or are created by an innovation, a change of
policy, or enrollment growth. Having said that, _______ teachers are encouraged
through various incentives to take advantage of outside courses and training that
deepen personal competence and enhance teaching skills and leadership
opportunities.”
“I came into the school with more training and computer knowledge than the school
provided. The school has also not provided training in areas that would interest me or
build my abilities to higher levels of competency for interacting with students online.
We do not design curriculum at our school; it is provided to us. Modifications are left
up to the teachers individually, but we are not currently "trained" on differentiating or
modifying to special needs.”
“I don't feel our training was adequate. There was so much more I had to learn by
trial and error. A good part of our training was spent on learning things that did not
apply to my job at the school (being a homeroom teacher).”
Going Virtual! 33

34. REFERENCES
Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Retrieved October 28 from
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf
Berliner, D. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performances. In J. Mangieri & C. Block (Eds.),
Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: Diverse perspectives (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace College.
Clark, T. (2001). Virtual schools: Trends and issues: A study of virtual schools in the United States
[Electronic version]. Malcomb, IL: Western Illinois University.
Dall’Alba, G. & Sandberg, J. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models.
Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383-412.
Dawley, L. (2007). The tools for successful online teaching. Information Science Press: Hershey, PA.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era
of the computer. New York: Free Press.
Fulton, K. (2002). Brave new world of virtual schooling in the U.S. National Association of State Boards of
Education. Retrieved September 12, 2004 from
http://www.nasbe.org/Standard/10_Summer2002/fulton.pdf
Hassel, B. C., & Terrell, M. G. (2004). How can virtual schools be a vibrant part of meeting the choice
provisions of the no child left behind act? Virtual School Report. Retrieved September 6, 2004, from
http://www.connectionsacademy.com/PDFs/VirtualNews704.pdf
Larreamendy-Joerns, J. & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of
Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.
Long, A. (2004). Cyber schools. Retrieved October 27, 2004 from the Education Commission of the States
Website: http://www.Ecs.Org/ecsmain.Asp?Page=/search/default.Asp
National Education Association (NEA). (2006a). Guide to online high school school courses. Retrieved August
19, 2007 from http://www.nea.org/technology/onlinecourseguide.html
National Education Association (NEA). (2006b). Guide to teaching online courses. Retrieved August 19, 2007
from http://www.nea.org/technology/onlineteachguide.html
North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL). (2007). NACOL National standards of quality for
online courses. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from http://www.nacol.org/nationalstandards
O’Gorman, D. (2005, April). National trends in online education: Implications for UIS. Retrieved May 15,
2005, from the University of Illinois, Springfield, Web site:
http://otel.uis.edu/techday2005/ogorman.htm
Picciano, A. G. & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators.
Retreived October 28 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/K-
12_Online_Learning.pdf
Rice, K. L. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-447.
Rice, K. L. (2005). Priorities in K--12 distance education: A Delphi study examining multiple
perspectives on policy, practice, and research. ProQuest, DAI-A 67/06. (UMI No.
DP14642)
Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research on K-12 online learning.
Naperville, Illinois: Learning Point Associates
Southern Regional Education Board (2003). Essential principles of high-quality online teaching: Guidelines for
evaluation K-12 online teachers. Retrieved January 30, 2006 from
http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/PDF/Essential_Principles.pdf
Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2006a). Standards for quality online courses. Retrieved August, 19
2007 from
http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/2006Pubs/StandardsQualityOnlineCourses.asp
Going Virtual! 34

35. Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2006b). Standards for quality online teaching. Retrieved August,
19 2007 from
http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/PDF/StandardsQualityOnlineTeaching.asp
Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2006c). Checklist for evaluating online courses. Retrieved August,
19 2007 from
http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/2006Pubs/ChecklistEvaluateOnlieCourses.asp
Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2006d). Online teaching evaluation tool.. Retrieved August, 19
2007 from
http://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/2006Pubs/OnlineTeachingEvaluationSVS.asp
Sternberg, R. J., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2001). Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought. New York: Oxford
University Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the internet, the law
and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington DC: National Educational
Technology Plan 2004.
Watson, J. (2005). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning. A snapshot of state-level policy and practice.
Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory at Learning Point
Associates. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/tech/Keeping_Pace2.pdf
Watson, J., & Ryan, J. (2006). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A snapshot of state-level policy and practice.
Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory at Learning Point Associates.
Retrieved January 9, 2007 from http://www.nacol.org/docs/Keeping%20Pace%20with%20K-
12%20Online%20Learning%202006.pdf
Web-based Education Commission. (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to
practice. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission/index.htm
Whitehouse, P. L., Breit, L. A., McCloskey, E. M., Ketelhut, D. J., & Dede, C. (2006). An overview of current
findings from empirical research on online teacher professional development. In C. Dede (Eds.),
Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods (pp. 13 - 29).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Going Virtual! 35

36. APPENDIX A
Participant School and Organization Affiliations
Apex Learning
Arkansas Virtual High School
Baltimore County Public School’s e-Learning Initiative
Broward Virtual School, Broward Virtual University
Colorado Online Learning
Connections Academy
eHigh School, Cobb County School District
Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT)
Evergreen Internet Academy
Florida Virtual School (FVHS)
Fulton County (GA) Virtual Campus
Hamilton County Virtual School
Idaho Digital Learning Academy (IDLA)
Idaho Distance Education Academy (I-DEA)
Illinois Virtual High School (IVHS)
Insight Schools
K-12 Inc.
Kentucky Virtual Schools (KVS/KVHS)
Louisiana Virtual School (LVS)
Michigan Virtual School (MVS)
National University Virtual High School Programs (NUVHS)
NCREL/Learning Point Assoc.
North American Council for Online Learning (NACOL)
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NC-DPI)
NYS Teacher Center Online Academy
Odyssey Charter School
Oregon State University K-12 Online
Richard McKenna Charter School
Spokane Virtual Learning (SVL)
Stetson University
Turner Virtual Learning Center
University of Miami Online High School (UMOHS)/Kaplan Virtual Education
Virtual High School (VHS)
Virtual Learning Academy (VLA)
West Virginia Virtual School
Wisconsin Virtual School
Going Virtual! 36

37. Location of Survey Respondents
LOCATION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Alaska 0.4%
Arizona 3.3%
Arkansas 0.4%
California 6.9%
Colorado 4.5%
Florida 9.4%
Georgia 0.8%
Idaho 21.2%
Illinois 0.8%
Kansas 0.4%
Kentucky 0.8%
Louisiana 0.4%
Maryland 0.4%
Massachusetts 0.8%
Michigan 1.2%
Minnesota 3.7%
Montana 0.8%
New York 0.4%
Nevada 1.6%
North Carolina 0.4%
Ohio 6.9%
Oklahoma 0.4%
Oregon 7.8%
Pennsylvania 17.1%
Rhode Island 0.4%
Tennessee 0.4%
Virginia 1.2%
Washington 1.2%
West Virginia 0.4%
Wisconsin 3.7%
Multistate 1.6%
Going Virtual! 37